As per case facts, the plaintiff challenged office orders related to stoppage of increments. The trial court partly decreed the suit, upholding an order dated 28.04.1980 which stopped one annual ... increment with cumulative effect. The 1st Appellate Court also upheld this specific order. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, contending that this stoppage of increment was a major penalty requiring a regular inquiry under the 1971 Regulations, which was not conducted. The question arose whether stoppage of one annual increment with future/cumulative effect is a minor or major penalty under the 1971 Regulations, and if major, whether a regular inquiry was mandatory. Finally, the High Court, citing Supreme Court rulings, held that such a penalty is major and necessitates a regular inquiry. As no inquiry was held and considering the significant time elapsed, the order dated 28.04.1980 was set aside. The plaintiff's suit was decreed in toto, granting all consequential benefits, with arrears restricted to 38 months from the suit's institution.